For freedom from oppression absolutely.
For freedom from oppression absolutely.Taking the emotion out of it all the data is on my side. Fertility rates started dropping in the sixties. Are we really saying that was peak living for everyone?
Economically it might have been.
It was better than the 50's but contraceptive pills and the tendency to marry later might have had something to do with it.Taking the emotion out of it all the data is on my side. Fertility rates started dropping in the sixties. Are we really saying that was peak living for everyone?
Some countries must have experienced a real boom in births since world population increased from 2.5 bn in 1950 to 8.2 bn now.
Some countries must have experienced a real boom in births since world population increased from 2.5 bn in 1950 to 8.2 bn now.
It isn’t what I’m referencing at all.On a wide scale kids are insurance against old age and illness. Have lots of kids, more chance one of them grows up well off enough for you to live off when you’re old and decrepit. The better either the state looks after you or you can provide for yourself the less you need lots of kids for economic reasons and the more your life becomes about kids as self actualisation and wanting to provide a better childhood for them than you had. Which as a parent in 2025 is basically impossible. I earn way more than my parents ever did and couldn’t dream of giving my kids the upbringing I had. I think that’s what people like BSB are referencing. But to say it’s impossible or you have to put your kids into poverty is just hyperbolic nonsense. Plenty of people raise kids perfectly well on meagre salaries.
What metric would you like to use here? Disposable income? Average weekly wage?
Like if you’re a housing theory of everything by kind of guy it should correlate with house price to wage ratio and it doesn’t.
Massively and a desire to limit it tooIncome distribution was far more equal in the late 60s than it is today
Thanks for challenging my prejudice with factsThatcher changed it and Blair built on it. Income inequality was highest by Thatcher's last year and highest under Brown by 2007/08.
View attachment 43045
So basically people that can't get a home can go fuck themselves because some financial institutions might not make money as quickly.It’s important to logic-line through the probability / possibility scenarios.
Worst case:
An oversupply of houses would be an absolute economic disaster, declining birth rate, declining population, reduced demand for housing, house prices fall to a level less than equity (ie negative equity) / debt / mass bankruptcy and repossession, government having to step in - the consequences that follow. Nightmare fuel for the UK economy (so reliant on saddling humans with debt that they are obliged to pay in order to live) is if we have a house price crash to the extent that humans just go bankrupt and demand social housing and the civil unrest that would ensue in such a scenario.
“Build more houses” is a shallow conclusion.
Go to Tile Hill and Canley, see the prefab houses thrown up after the second war. We could do the same quickly and easily if we really wanted to; there are reasons why we don’t.
Never underestimate how politicians are controlled by financiers and foreign lobbyists.
That’s the harsh reality of how our nation is controlled. A select few believe that they have the divine right to lord it over the little people.So basically people that can't get a home can go fuck themselves because some financial institutions might not make money as quickly.
This is quite an interesting thread on Japan's solution to redevelopment.That’s the harsh reality of how our nation is controlled. A select few believe that they have the divine right to lord it over the little people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?